File deleuze-guattari/deleuze-guattari.0603, message 36

To: <>
Date: Tue, 28 Mar 2006 14:11:41 +0200
Subject: Re: [D-G] deleuze and benjamin on violence


it is a little bit curious that you totally neglect,
that in doing violence there is almost always
someone who is seriously hurted, wounded or even killed.
Therefore  there is a barrier in almost all people
which makes them hesitate or trying to avoid it.
This is very direct related  to the wish to be not hurted oneself and to
regard the other as in certain ranges as similar.
Psychological then we have normally identification.
To be honest, this point is missing in your discussion of pure violence.
This is done without any real argument and thus very unexpected.
This is the reason why I resist so much on this basics, as I got
the impression there is  much carelessness concerning the
real and painful suffering of the victims of pure violence.
And this is in an intellectual advanced and dedicated to freedom
and liberation discourse under academic educated or moralistic or political
thinking people more than puzzling.

Thus every more elaborated discourse allowing pure violence
has a very strong burden to carry.

The avoidance of violence comes from a  kind of general love or passion or
solidarity with
the other people living on this earth.
Therefore a discourse allowing pure violence has to
involve a lot of affects. The only general accepted
reason is self-defence, which is present in almost every
justification for violence coming from official institutions.

As I tried to point out, even riots or revolutions are related to this,
as they try to keep the right of happiness which in its actual form is taken
be granted. The argumentation concerning the wish of almost all members
to safety and the exclusion of pure violence explains
why this pure violence in general nowadays fails and falls back
to the violaters.

There are in developed western democracies enough critical intellectuals and
possibilities to express and to defend the rights and needs of the people.
So, pure violence nowadays in inner democratic conflicts are
almost always harmful and mostly to explain by
uncontrolled affects - most prominent revenge and impatience.
This is a variant of "to narrow" pursuing one's interests.

There is also no justification pointing to the very complicated questions
around schizophrenia - which is  actual  some kind of collective noun.
As I tried to express several times, most of them are very moralistic and
intellectual minded.
"We didn't see a schizophrenic until now" - said Deleuze and Guattari in the

AS you know, mystical discourses and passions are almost totally ruled
by the passion of love, so there is no justification of pure violence
coming from this discourse.

greetings Harald Wenk

-----Original Message-----
[]On Behalf Of NZ
Sent: Dienstag, 28. Marz 2006 04:49
Subject: Re: [D-G] deleuze and benjamin on violence

true, I'm going kind of backwards, and thats confusing.... I am eager
to plot thisstory, where to take violence thread, it is probably best
to make sure we are talking about the same thing ... w/o aggreement
violence will destroy understand (just 2 extra steps through the
ethical ennead)

okay, but to just peek at a tiny clue.... so, there was a garrulous
attractive young woman who talked to breuer & gave freud the idea of
developing their logos-centric (creepy talking on a couch) techniques
of analyzing hysteria which turned into this general theory of
unconscious repression that I can learn at any
universe-ity...blab-blab-logos-blab. the "itty-bitty universe". (What
is repression?) The next big jump is from schizophrenia to violence,
and that's pretty much covered in D-G's anti-oedipus book).

"Sovereign Violence"
The best way to read wb's "violence" is backwards, (that way your
hypocampus can accurately decode it for you to contemplate on your bus
ride home from the library.) Was this essay written in 1921?, same
year that the inventer of the television, Charles Francis Jenkins
incorporates Jenkins Laboratories in Washington, D.C. with the purpose
of "developing radio movies to be broadcast for entertainment in the
home". (Re: Color in 1921)
1) How does wb's discussion (explicitly based) on darwin and spinoza,
turn into a discussion on "Sovereign Violence"? Gee-wiz,  was it WWI
maybe? Why.

"pure divine violence" vs "pure drivel violence"
here the jihad can be defined in western terms: w/o warning "divine
violence" has been realized.  ths terrorizm is violating the laws of
"mythic violence" that sovriegn modernity has assumed for itself. The
fact that nuclear arms are not involved keeps it at this level. But
indeed the entire cold-war/ arms-race, certainly remains as the
current "pure divine violence". (I question whether "divine violence"
is in fact also unalloyed violence.) At least if the sovereignty has
alloyed itself to the spectacle of society. .. 2) it a monocle
for one-dimensional man?

i like benj.... and he leaves me with lots more questions:
3) "ultimate insolubility of all legal problems" vs "psycho-analytical
method", does this indicate benj. attitude towards the logos in
general and could this provide the basis for a hypothetical debate
between freud?
4) "law-making violence" vs "law-protecting violence" how come there
is no "law-breaking violence"
5) is "mutatis mutandis" latin for "mother-fucker"?

soon we will have democracy someday soon, but that, like communisim,
is a mere ideal, it does not exist, it never has, perhaps it will.
(note-to-self: must read spinoza's social contract, what name is it called?)
List address:

List address:


Driftline Main Page


Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005